SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION versus MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 23-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 453
453
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION
v.
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 640 of 2022)
MARCH 23, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Supreme Court Bar
Association sought writ of mandamus directing Union Ministry of
Urban Development to (i) grant permission for the conversion into
a chamber block for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring
1.33 acres situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the
Supreme Court; (ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court
as ‘a Supreme Court Complex’ , so that all the buildings can be
utilized for conversion into chambers or for being redeveloped as
a chamber block / for activities of the Supreme Court or for any
other amenities for lawyers; and (iii) allot a government bungalow
which is presently being occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’
Club to the petitioner – Held: Such directions cannot be issued on
the judicial side – The Supreme Court of India on its administrative
side to take appropriate decisions bearing in mind the needs of the
institution for the present and the future and the interest of all
stakeholders – The process of decision making would also involve
consultation with the Bar – SCAORA, SCBA and BCI would be at
liberty to address the issue with their representations on the
administrative side – Writ petitions disposed of.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 640
of 2022.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 817 of 2022.
Vikas Singh,  Pradeep Kumar Rai, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms.
Sonia Mathur, Brijender Chahar,  Dinesh Kumar Goswami, Vikas Pahwa,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Ranji Thomas, Sr. Advs., Rohit Pandey, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha,
Reepak Kansal, Ms. Seema Patnaha, Kumar Gaurav, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, Vikas Gupta, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Upendra Mishra, Ms. Nandini
Gupta, Satbir Singh Pillania, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Pravir Choudhary, Advs.
for the Petitioner.
R. Venkataramani, AG, K.M Nataraj, Ms. Madhavi Divan, A.S.Gs.,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Manan Kumar Mishra, S Prabhakaran, Apurba
Sharma, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Jyoti Zongluju, Kanu Agrawal, Mrs. Deepabali
Dutta, Vinayak Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Devvrat,
Manoj K. Mishra,  Snehasish Mukherjee, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Puneet
Singh Bindra, Sachin Sharma, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Vishal Prasad, Ms.
Meenakshi Chauhan, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Aakarshan Aditya, Ms.
Anzu K Varkey, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Ms. Anjul Diwedi, Vishwajeet
Mishra, Sai Girdhar Diwedi, Ramshankar, Advs. for the Respondents.
Applicant-in-person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The Supreme Court Bar Association1 has invoked the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to
(i)
grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block
for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acres
situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the
Supreme Court;
(ii)
convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘a
Supreme Court Complex’ so that all the buildings across
the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road including the
Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, Indian Law
Institute and Indian Society of International Law can be
utilized for conversion into chambers or for being
redeveloped as a chamber block / for activities of the
Supreme Court or for any other amenities for lawyers; and
(iii)
allot a government bungalow which is presently being
occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to the
petitioner.
1 “SCBA”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
2. According to the petitioner, the number of advocates practicing
before the Supreme Court has increased manifold in recent years and
the existing chamber blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growing
needs of lawyers eligible for allotment. According to the petitioner, an
area admeasuring 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex was
allotted to the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Urban Development of
which a small portion has been utilized for the construction of a new
chamber block for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. In
the new chamber block for lawyers, 234 chambers have been constructed
which are now allotted on a dual occupancy to accommodate 468
lawyers.
3. The petitioner asserts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.